AMAR METALS Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEPUTY Sales Tax Commissioner (Vigilance and Inspections), Jammu, respondent No. 2, on October. 8, 1987 raided the shop of the petitioner situate at Below Gumat, Jammu where he is carrying on business of selling utensils and seized certain articles as he allegedly failed to account for the same. Respondent No. 3 afterwards on receiving Rs. 31200/ - as cash security released the goods. Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order of respondent No. 2 for obtaining abovesaid cash security from him and for issuing direction to the said respondent to refund the said amount.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that he is doing local purchase business and therefore, exempted from sales tax. Respondent No. 2 raided his premises under sec. 15 of the J&K General Sales Tax. Act, (for short Act hereafter) though he had no authorization to do so. After seizure of articles from his shop respondent No. 2 directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 32130/ - or in the alternative directed him to furnish cash security to that extent and in this manner he was forced to pay the abovesaid amount as cash security. Said order of receiving cash security was illegal and against the provisions of sec. 15 (5) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 asked him to produce the account books and sales and purchase bills and he produced the same available at the shop. He, however, submitted before respondent No. 2 that some purchase bills were lying with his accountant who was maintaining accounts and sought time for producing the same but he was harassed by respondent No. 2 and then forced to pay the above -said amount. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 did not show him order of the commissioner authorizing him to raid his shop in accordance with the provisions of S. 15 (3) of the Act and further this respondent within jurisdiction seized article under sections 15 (3) and 15(5) of the Act.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed reply affidavit stating therein that Bansilal Gupta, who has filed the present petition, is not the proprietor of the firm M/S Amar Metals as he was only drawing Rs. 1000/ -as salary and being paid employee. He has no locus standi to maintain the petition on behalf of the petitioner -firm. It has further been pointed out that no final order in the case has so far been passed and proceedings are still subjudice and as such this petition is premature. This respondent has further stated, in the objections that the petitioner is purchasing goods in the course of inter -state trade by unlawfully using the names of some other business concerns with the intention of evading tax and inquiry is being made in this connection from various sources, including some other states. According to him the authorisation obtained for raiding the shop was shown to the petitioner and during the conduct of inspection under sec. 15 of the Act inventory of unaccounted goods was prepared. It has also been stated that seizure memo of unaccounted goods was prepared in presence of two counsel of the petitioner and they suggested many alternative proposals to avoid physical lifting of goods with the plea that the business of the dealer would be stopped and his image in public tarnished and considering the request of the dealer on humanitarian grounds un -accounted goods were not lifted when the dealer agreed to pay cash security equal to the penalty leviable under sec. 15 (5) of the wholesale market value of the goods which was calculated at Rs. 1.30 lacs.